Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]

If Ferrari was using Massa's car as a test bed for various things -resulting in a constantly changing car that the driver never gets a feel for-- how does one really factor in such things when doing a points comparison between teammates?

This is just a broader statement...can statistics really be effectively used to judge comparisons between Schumacher and Irvine, and then Schumacher and Barichello since team orders were in full play? Assuming the cars are equal, and there are no team orders, a statistical comparison is going to be more effective. Yet, how would we know if the cars were equal? We're taking it for granted both cars are equal. Without knowing all of the other external factors on the situation, it makes any statistical analysis of F1 difficult.

There´s no way to get a reliabe result regarding the drivers abilities from any available statistic. F1 is just too technical for that. Even if we take the easiest scenario possible - e.g. teammates with equal material, equal reliability etc. - there are several factors, which have to be considered. E.g. The general behaviour of the car, might just give edge for one driver as it suits his style better - and we might never know, that the result would´ve been different with other - but still equal - material....or just simply if a driver is "in good shape" in a specific period of time or not (that might sound vague, but i guess that also exists for drivers as it does for other athletes: E.g. Federer achieving a grand slam in year X and not winning sh!t in year Y.....despite using the same racket.;) )

As we all know, the result is, that there are vastly differing opinions about that issue - even if we only focus on the currently active generation, let alone all generations as a whole...

Ps. One small remark about your last passage: It´s al little bit ironic, when someone puts much emphasis on using MSC as the example for possibly "unequal conditions", and uses a avatar of Senna sitting in a Lotus at the same time.

There´s no way to get a reliabe result regarding the drivers abilities from any available statistic. F1 is just too technical for that. Even if we take the easiest scenario possible - e.g. teammates with equal material, equal reliability etc. - there are several factors, which have to be considered. E.g. The general behaviour of the car, might just give edge for one driver as it suits his style better - and we might never know, that the result would´ve been different with other - but still equal - material....or just simply if a driver is "in good shape" in a specific period of time or not (that might sound vague, but i guess that also exists for drivers as it does for other athletes: E.g. Federer achieving a grand slam in year X and not winning sh!t in year Y.....despite using the same racket.;) )

As we all know, the result is, that there are vastly differing opinions about that issue - even if we only focus on the currently active generation, let alone all generations as a whole...

I agree. I think the point was really that there are so many factors given the nature of F1, that even though statistics may look cut and dry on the surface, the variables are tremendous. Track surfaces, tires, and so on. Pure spec racing might be the only way to get any real idea for talent levels and so on. Of course F1 was never intended to be a spec race anyhow, although we're closer than ever to it.

Ps. One small remark about your last passage: It´s al little bit ironic, when someone puts much emphasis on using MSC as the example for possibly "unequal conditions", and uses a avatar of Senna sitting in a Lotus at the same time.

Was it easier to get equal conditions with two F1 cars in 1985/1986 compared to say 2002?

Was it easier to get equal conditions with two F1 cars in 1985/1986 compared to say 2002?

The latter of course, but i´m not assuming that this was the case at that time or nowadays (only considering equal material) There are of course sometimes exceptions on a single weekend: Like Brazil 2002 at Ferrari or Nürburgring 2009 at McLaren, "Wing-gate" in Silverstone 2010, Ferrari this year in India etc.

Or the quality of cars each driver had at his disposal during the various points of his career. Top 20's or 10s or 5s etc like this are purely subjective and mostly unworkable IMHO.

not only this as it doesn't take in account the score system of the time. In a 10-6-4-3-2-1 it's worth to risk more for a win as it is if you are in 7th position for example. Same is true when you could discard some results for the championship. And how they did with drivers that shared a car?

Anyway it is still interesting to see Fangio in first with such a large margin to second. I believe Fangio is by far the one with the best stats (relative for the time/races he did).